DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 269 884 EA 018 488

AUTHOR Pavan, Barbara NelsonTITLE Mentors and Mentoring Functions Perceived as Helpful

to Certified Aspiring and Incumbent Female and MalePublic School Administrators.

PUB DATE Apr 86NOTE 29p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research kssociation (70th, SanFrancisco, CA, April 16-20, 1986).

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) --Speeches /Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plu- Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Administrate Attitudes; *Administrators; Elementary

'Secondary Education; Employment Patterns; *4obApplicants; *Mentors; Principals; *Sex Differences;State Surveys; Superintendents

IDENTIFIERS Pennsylvania

ABSTRACTWomen seeking or holding administrative rositions in

Pennsylvania schools reported having mentors as frequen14 as men,according to a stateride survey. A questionnaire was Lent to 1,324people holding admin.strative certificates and currently employed inpublic schools, and 622 responded. Thutse were divided into 16subgroups according to the position concerned (elementary principal,secondary principal, assistant superintendent, or superintendent),whethur the respondent held the position or was seeking it, and thesex of the respyndent. Among the topics addressed in the survey werementors and mentoring functions. Respondents were asked to identifythe sex and role of 3 mentors and to rate these mentors' helpfulnessin 21 mentoring areas. Fewer job aspirants than incumbents reportedhaving mentors. Males were mentors in 1,133 pa:,:s and women in 252pairs. Men served as mentors for women in 434 cases and women for menin 128. Mentors for superintendents were most frequentlysuperintendents, and mentors for all other groups were mostfrequently principals. Psychosocial rather than career functions weredeemed more helpful by both men and women. Since women, bothincumbents and aspirants, reported mentoring support, it wasdifficult to reconcile this with the lack of women in schooladministrative positions. (PGD)

****t*****************************************************%************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that csn be made ** from the original document. *

**************************w*******************************1.************

A

co

f\J

w

U 11 Of PARTMEN1 Of fOl.CATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MAT IAL HAS BEE! GRANTED BY

CENTER (ERIC)

XThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction duality

Points of view or opinions stated in thiSclOCumeet do not necessarily represent officialOEFII position or policy

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESIN':ORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

Mentors and Mentoring Functions

Perceived As Helpful To

Certified Aspiring and Incumbent

Female and Male Public School Administrators

Barbara Nelson Pavan

Temple University

Philadelphia, PA 19122

Paper Presented at

American Education Research Association

San Francisco, California

A?ril, 1986

Mentors-2-

Abstract

Responses by 622 people were received for a mailed

questionnaire sent to random sample generated by the

FernsylvanLa Department of Education. For each

administrative position (superintendent, assistant

superintendent, elementary principal, and secondary

principal) the respondents were divided by whether job

incumbents or aspirants and by sex resulting in 16 sub

populations. Women report having mentors as frequently as

men do with men generally serving as mentors to both men and

women. Women rate each of the mentoring functions as mure

helpful than men do. The psychosocial rather than the

career functions are deemed more helpful by both men and

women. Since women, both incumbents and aspirants, report

mentoring support, ir is difficult to reconcile this with

the lack of women in school administrative positions.

Mentors-3-

Mentors and Mentoring Functions Perceivea As Helpful to

Certified Aspiring and Incumbent Female and Male Public

School Administrators

One reason cited for the small numbers of women in

educational leadership positions is that they lack mentors

and sponsors. It has generally been assumed that these are

available to men. By surveying certified men and women who

hold and do not hold positions as Echool Administrators;

this research documents the mentors and mentoring functions

experienced by women and men seeking positions as elementary

or secondary principals and assistant or superintendent

jobs. Comparisons are made between those who achieve

positions and those who don't as a total group and by sex.

Perspective

A considerable body of literature is available which

reports on the lack of women school administrators. Jones.

and Montenegro (1982) give recent national statistics and

Pavan (1985) presents data on the availability of a

qualified female administrative job pool which shows that

women hold a greater percentage of the certificates issued

than of the administrative positions in Pennsylvania.

4

r

Mentors-4-

Most research on women seeking administrative positions

includes comments by these women on the lack of mentors,

sponsors,or support. Little documentation is available in

the field of education as compared to business management

studies, documenting the experience men have who seek

mentors, sponsors, or support in obtaining school

administrative jobs. During the late 1970's the Oregon

Network was developed to assist women and minorities

(Schmuck, Charters, and Carlson, 1981). Clement was

instrumental in the development of NECEL in New England to

assist women and in Pennsylvania, a Women's Caucus within

PASA has grown under the leadership of the Secretary of

Lducation. This is modeled on the AASA Women's Caucus noted

by Jones and Montenegro (1982, 1983). Since men have been

the overwhelming majority in administrative organizations,

they have been using these as support groups for many years.

Since it was not known if the support available to men

and women differs significantly (although that would appear

to be the case), it was instructive to document support

available to both men and women and if that support is of

the same of different gender from the aspirant. Since the

number of women is so limited in administrative positions,

it woul he necessary for males to mentor both men and

women. Present administrators may be unaware of their

menioring behaviors or selection process for proteges.

5

I

Mentors-5-

Literature reviews (Atkinson, 1981, -:nd Shakeshaft,

1979) surveys of women (Dias, 1976; Edson, 1980; Jones a-1d

Montenegro, 1983; Ortiz, 1982; Schmuck, 1981; and Rometo,

1982) trying to ascertain why more women aren't school

administrators, will mention lack of mentors or sponsorship

as a possible factor. Surveys generally incluaed one

question asking the women who supported or encouraged them

in order to determine the roles of mentos, if any.

Valverde (1980) studied the sponsor-protege process by

interviewing six sponsors and found four basic functions are

provided: exposure, advice, protection, and sanction. The

sponsor helps move the aspirant from the classroom by

providing administrative experience, access to other

district administrators, and career guidance.

In order to delinate what a mentor does for a protege

in benavorial terms, the business management literature must

be consulted. A list of 14 mentoring behaviors was complied

by Misserian (1982) from her survey of women managers as

proteges. Collins (1983) developed a similar list of 16

mentoring behaviors from responses by 400 women to an

open-ended questionnaire. Kram (1983) divided mentoring

behaviors into two categories, career and psychosocial

functions, based on the male and female response` of 18

mentor-pretege pairs. Career functions include sponsorship,

exposure-and-visibility, coaching and protection, and

6

Y

Mentors-6-

challenging assignments. The psychosucial functions wtich

enchance competence and identity include role modeling,

acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling, and friendship.

Shapiro (1985) developed a list of 16 menturing

functions from the sources noted above and asked 140 middle

and top level business managers both male and female to note

these functions on a 7-point Likert scale as to the degree

of help received from each of 4 individuals and how valuable

it was. Women reported receie,ag more help then the men

reported for each of the 16 with significant differences on

the following 8 mentoring functions: Set challenging tasks,

support & encouragement, growth in knowledge z self

confidence, teach "tricks of the trade", opportunity to

learn by observation and association, provide feedback on

progress, develop leadership abilities, and encourage

risk-taking.

A list of 21 mentoring functiocs for this study was

adopted from tne literature and divided into the categories

of career functions and psychosocial functions. Survey

respondents could rate as many as three people as to degree

of helpfulness to their administrative career development or

advancement on each function.

7

V

Methods

Sample

Mentors-7-

The appropriate certificate is required for employment

as a school administrator in Pennsylvania. Recorda of names

and certificates received is public informati as is cue

present employment position of all those in ' tsylvania

school districts. The certification records contain names

and certificates issued. This data source was bumped into

the base of individuals currently employed in the public

schools which includes individual names, current

assignments, and work location addresses. Except in

instances where employment in position by sex is less than

100, random samples were drawn from populations with

certificates issued since January, 1970 of 100 men in

position, 100 men with certificates, 100 women in position,

and 100 women with certificates for each of the following

administrative jobs: elementary principal, secondary

principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent.

The survey questionnaire was developed and sent on

October 1, 1985 to this random sample generated by

11.tnnsylvania Department of Education of 1,324 people holding

administrative certificates and currently employed in

Pennsylvania. Usable completed questionnaires were received

from 622 people for a return rate of 47%. Each of the

following reasons accounted for the non responses:

8

Mentors-8-

retirements, job changes, incorrect addresses, district

offices not forwarding to the school where individual was

assigned, errors in employment position data base, cor "uter

assignment errors, and unwillingness of individual to spend

30 minutes to respond to questionnaire. Follow-up telephone

calls to a small number of non respondents indicated that a

number of surveys did not reach their destinations.

For each position (superintendent, assistant

superintendent, secondary principal, and elementary

principal) the respondants have been divided by whether

incumbent job holders or aspirants and by sex.

Therefore, there are sixteen sub-populations involved:

Certificate Position Sex Code

1. Superintendent Incumbent Female SIF

2. Superintendent Aspirant Female SAF

3. Superintendent Incumbent Male SIM

4. Superintendent Aspirant Male SAM

5. AssistantSuperintendent Incumbent Female ASIF

6. AssistantSuperintendent Aspirant Female ASAF

7. AssistantSuperintendent Incumbent Male ASIM

8. AssistantSuperintendent 'spirant Male ASAM

9

9. ElementaryPrincipal

10. ElementaryPrincipal

11. ElementaryPrincipal

12. ElementaryPrincipal

13. SecondaryPrincipal

14. SecondaryPrincipal

15. SecondaryPrincipal

16. SecondaryPrincipal

Mentors-9-

Incumbent Female EPIF

Aspirant Female EPAF

Incumbent Male EPIM

Aspirant Male EPAM

Incumbent Female SPIF

Aspirant Female SPAF

Incumbent Male SPIM

Aspirant Female SPAM

The code names will L,e used in this paper in order to

avoid repetition.

Nu oers of completed surveys for each of the 16 rub

groups are given in Table 1. While some numbers appear low,

they reflect the size of the subgroup total population.

Surveys were sent to 100 individuals in each subgroup except

SIF, SAF, ASIF, and SPIF which do not have total population

of 100. Response rate for SIF was 68% with 13 of the 19

responding; for ASIF was 71% with 11 of the 14 responding;

SAF was 46% with 35 of the 76 responding; and for SPIF was

i

Mentors-10-

62% with 18 of the 29 responding. The low numbers in the

incumbent categories reveal that women are not being hired

for these positions. The SAF number is low because this

certificate requires administrative experience which is not

possible unless one is hired as a school administrator.

Instrument

The four page survey instrument was desigled for those

in possession of administrative certificates whether or not

currently employed as a school administrator. Appropriate

categories were gleaned from an extensive literature

review. References given here are those most relevent to

this particular paper. Actual items were obtained from

Collins (1983), Kram (1983), Misseciau (1982), Shapiro

(1985), and Valverde' (1980) foT: the section of the survey on

mentoring.

Various parts of the instrument were piloted oil women

d3ring several conference presentations. The complete

instrument was piloted on a small group of men and women

outside of Pennsylvania representative of those who would

receive the final version of the instrument. Minor changes

were made to improve the format and clarity of the

directions.

In addition to personal characteristics the survey

probed five areas: career pathways, job search strategies,

it

Mentors-11-

time usage, mentors and their functions, and barriers

experienced with strategies used to overcome them.

This paper presents only the data on mentors and their

functions, positions of mentors, and sex composition of the

mentor protege pairs. See table 2 as to the format of the

question on the survey. The top 12 items are the career

functions followed by 9 psychosocial mentoring functions.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 summarizes selected sample characteristics for

the total sample and the 16 subgroups. Nearly ail the

respondents were white with only 5.8% of the respondents

noting race as black and none in any other category. While

this perce -age-is low it is near the state-wide figure of

8.9%. Average age of total sample is 44.79. Analysis of

variance between the 16 groups yields an F ratio of 5.741

with probability of 0.000. As might be expected the

aspirants are younger than the incumbents. Differences in

marital or paired status were by sex with males much more

likely to be coupled. A raw chi square of 61.28591 with 15

degrees of freedom was significant at the 0.0000 level.

Over 81% of the sample were paired with percentages in

female subgroups from 54 to 72 and in male groups from 80 to

98. Men were more likely tc be paired than women.

12

Mentors-12-

The state of Pennsylvania classifies school districts

according to size. Class 1 is districts %.1th over 350,000

students and contains only Philadelphia an Pittsburgh.

There are 70 districts in class 2 with 30,000 or more

students. Class 3 contains 396 districts with student

populations of 5,000 to 29,E and the remaining 33 smaller

districts are in Class 4. Table 1 indicates percentage If

respondents for each sub-population in varying district

size classes. An adek.late representation was obtained.

Sex of Mentor-Protege Pairs

In the columus on Table 3 the sex of mentor is

mentioned first, then that of the protege so M-F means a

male mentor and a female protege. Only 103 or 17% of the

respondents report not having a mentor or just did not

answer this question. A lower percentage of the aspirants

than the incumbents of same sex in same position group

report having mentors. There are 124 F-F and 699 M-M 'entor

protege pairs for a total of 823 sa.:10 sec pairs. There are

434 M-F and 128 F-M pairs for a total of 562 cross sex

pairs. Males are the mentors in 1133 pairs sad females are

mentors in 252 pairs reflective of the dominance of men in

school administrative positons.

13

Mentors-13-

Position of Mentors

rae positions or roles of the mentors as indicated by

the proteges are reported in Table 4. The most frequently

reported role for the mentors of the superintendent groups

iG that of superintend:zni. Incumbent superintendents most

frequently have superintendents as mentors. For all other

groups except one, the principal is most frequently

mentioned a,. the mentor. Women aspiring toward the

elementary principalship are most likely to perceive

professors as their mentors. Spouses are the next most

frequently mentioned role as mentors with 20% of the

respondents naming their partners as one of three mentors.

Mentoring Functions

In order to -ompare the perceived helpfulness for each

of the 21 mentoring functions, scores were summed for each

function for each individual and then means were lalculatei.

for each subgroup and the total population (See Table 5 and

6). Possible range for each individual was from 0 to 12

with the higher scores indicating the function was more

helpful. Analysis of variance was calculated for each of

the 21 mentoring functions for the 16 subgroups.

Probabilities for the F ratios ran from 0.0000 to 0.0149

indicating significant differences between the subgroups on

each of the 21 mentoring functions. The Student-Newman-

Kevls procedure was used to determine where these

differences were. Between 1 and 22 pairs of groups were

J

Mentors14

significantly different at the 0.05 level on each mentoring

function. In most situations the differences were between

the aspiring elementary principal groups which had the

lowest means and the incumbent female assistant and

superintendent groups. (Complete statistical data is

available from the author upon request.)

Position groups ranke - Position groups were ranked by how

helpful they perceived career and ?sychosocial mentoring

functions were to their career development. (See Table 7)

The subgroups which perceived career mentoring functions as

most helpful to their career advancement are ASIF, SIF,

SPIF, and ASIM ;Mile the four grorns which rated them the

lowest are ASAM, SPAM, EPAF, and EPAM. Incumbents

especially females rated career functions high, while

asvirants especially males rated them the lowest. The same

ranking was achieved for psychosocial mentoring functions.

Functions ranked. Mentoring functions are ranked by means

for the total population for both career and psychosocial

aspects on Table 8. Psychosocial functions are rated higher

than career functions with 7 of the 9 psychosocial and only

5 of the 12 career functions achieving means over 6.00. The

top five are: support and encouragement, enhance my self

confidence, and friendship (psychosocial) followed by

sponsorship and provide needed information (career). Those

15

Mentors-15-

functions considered least helpful are the career functions

of arraago access to administrators and administrative

experience, provide protection and advise on salary

negotiations and the psychosocial function, facilitate move

from classroom.

Comparison with Shapiro study. Of the studies previously

cited, only the one by Shapiro provides sufficient data for

comparative purposes. Since Shapiro surveyed men and women

in top and middle management positions, comparisons mast be

made with the incumbent groups in this study. Shapiro did

not present a total mean for each funct!on and this study

included 5 additional mentoring functions. In both studies

women have higher means than men for each mentoring

/unction, indicating that women reported mentoring received

as more helpful than men do. With only two exceptions men

and women in this study ranked each mentoring functions

within two ranks of the total ranking. The exceptions are,

risk taking ranked fifth for men and tenth for women and wen

ranked coaching eighteenth instead of total rank of 5.

Both surveys found men and women ranking supprrt and

encouragement and enhance my self confidence in the top

four. Friendship and sponsorship were also in Pavan's top 4

while counseling and set challenging tasks standards were

also in Shapiro's top 4. In the bottom 3 for both surveys

16

Mcnt.rq-16-

were facilitate entry an,' advise on salary negotiations.

Protection was also noted low by Pavan's sample and

sponsorships by Shapiro's sample. Differences could be due

to sampling, since Pavan studied school administrators and

Shapiro, business managers.

Discussion and Implications

['omen report having mentors as frequently as men do.

They report that each of the mentoring functions has been

more helpful than men so report. Women report that males

very frequently serve as mentors to females. This data

seems puzzling in light of the small percentages of women

currently employed in school administrative positions. In

Pennsylvania (Pavan, 1985) where this study was conducted

women hold 3.3% of the superintendent jobs, 7.6% of the

assistant superintendent positions,and 16.9% of the

elementary and 3.5% of the secondary school principalships.

It does not appear that lack of mentors or support explains

this sex disequity in school administation.

Do men under report the assistance which they receive?

Are mentors, due to affirmative action, making special

efforts to assist women? Further research of both mentors

and proteges especially with mentors having both male and

female proteges may lead to answers for these questions.

17

Mentors-17-

Since the psychosocial functions of mentoring were

deemed so very important, school districts may wish to

review their administrative intern plans (if any) to be sure

these factors are incorporated. Career functions should

also be analyzed as it may be that they are inadequately

provided and, therefore, are less helpful. School boards

may even wish to adopt policies which will encourage

administrators to mentor potential administrative

candidates.

This research supported in part by Temple University.

Opinions presented are those of the author.

18

Mentors-18-

REFERENCES

Adkison, J. A. (1981). Women in school administration: Areview of the research. Review of EducationalResearch, 51 (3), 311-343.

Biklen, S. K., & Brannigan, M. B. (Eds.). (1980). Womenand educational leadership. Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath.

Collins, N. W. (1983). Professional women and theirmentors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dias, S. L. (April, 1976). The aspiration levels of womenfor administrat!ve careers in education: Predictivefactors and implication for effecting change. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducation Research Association, San Francisco,California.

Edson, D. K. (1980). Female as irants in ub3ic schooladministration. Why do they continue to aspire toprincipalships? Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Oregon, Eugene.

Hullhorst, A. (1984). A comparative study of the careeraspirations, job seeking patterns, and career patternsof male and female doctoral reel. ients in educationaladministration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Western Michigan University.

Jones, E. H. & Montenegro, X. P. (July, 1982). Recenttrends in the representation of women and minorities inschool administration and problems in documentation.Arlington, VA: American Association of SchoolAdministrators.

Jones, E. H. & Montenegro, X. P. (1983). Factors predictingwomel's upward career mobility in schooladministration. Journal of Educational EquityLeadership, 3(3), 231-241.

Jonep, E. H. & Montengro, X. P. (1982). Climbing the careerladder: A research study of women in schooladministration. ".rlington, VA: American Associationof School Administrators.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentorIng relationship.Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608-625.

Missirian, A. K. (1982). The corporate connection: WhZexecutive women need mentors to reach the top.nngiewod ciitts, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

19

Mentors-19-

Ortiz, F. I. (1982). Career patterns in education: Women,men, and minorities in public school administration.South Hadley, MA: Bergin Publishers.

Pavan, B. N. (1985). Certified but not hired: Womenadministrators in Pennsylvania. Paper presented at theResearch on Women and Education Conference, Boston, MA.

Rometo, L. K. (1982). Women administrators inPenns lvania's 'ublic schools: Overcomin barriers torecruitment and promotion. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Schmuck, P. A., Charters, W. W., Jr., & Carlson, R. O.(Eds.). (1981). Educational policy and management:Sex differentials. New York: Academic Press.

Shakeshaft, C. (1979). Dis&ertation research on women ineducational administration: A-synthesis of findingsand paradigm for future research. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Texas, A. & M. University, CollegeStation, TX.

Shapiro, G. L. (1985). Sex differences in mentorinAfunctions received and valued by managers. Paperpresented at the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.

Smith, J. A. (1976). A study of women who are certified andem to ed as rinci als and assistant 'rincipals inPennsylvania. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Zimmerman, J. N. (1971). The status of women ineducational administrative positions within the centraloffices of public schools. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA .

20

'DOE 1 - Number, Raze, Pep, 113rtlal Stmtlys, District Size of REspzrrlents

_ MuterBlak

N %

&wagePep

MsrriedPaired %

District 3izeibmentages

361 3 1 2 3 G.

I F 13 0 0 48.15 53.8 0 9.1 90.9 0

A F 35 2 5.9 45.17 68.6 12.5 37.5 50.0 0

I M E0 0 0 48.08 91.7 0 8.8 82.5 8.8

AM 53 1 2 44.2._ 93.1 4.3 42.6 53.2 0

Asst. Sup. 149 7

I F 11 2 20 48.36 63.6 20.0 30.0 50.0 0

A F 45 3 7 41.65 62.8 22.2 19.4 58.3 0

I M 46 0 0 46.% 93.5 4.3 41.3 543 0

A il .47 2 4.3 41.443 85.1 17.5 32.5 47.5 2.5

El. Pr. 1.71

I F 51 3 6.3 45.96 72.5 37.3 17.6 43.1 2.0

A F Yf 3 9.1 42.23 67.6 35.7 32.1 28.6 3.6

I M 46 1 2.3 44.71. 88.9 6.7 33.3 572 2.2

AM 40 2 5.1 40.17 93.5 26.3 42.1 23.7 7.9

Sec. Pr. 141

I F 18 6 33.3 47.89 66.7 43.8 37.5 18.3 0

A F 37 5 14.7 42.00 70.3 33.0 40.0 26.7 3.3

I M 53 4 7.8 49.69 %.3 5.9 25.5 64.7 3.9

A M 33 1 3.0 42.85 8i..8 0 17.2 82.8 0

1 i 35 5.8Z 44.79 81.3 15.2 29.1 53.1 2.6

I -. InairbaitA= Aspirant

F = RstaleM - Male

bk 2 4J1../ r ar 'r 61 I ',Me S 7;01 it

10. Select 3 people who helped your admininstrative career development/advancement.

Rate each person by circling the number for each item.- --- --- - .

1, Very little 4- Very great help2- Some

Person I - M F Person II - M F Person III - M F

Helper's position!role .

My position then - lentr:h of relationship

Sponsorship (Promote/recommend) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Exposure - and - Visibility 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Coaching Gay ger 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4Protection 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Set challenging task/performance standard 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Share expertise - "tricks of the trade" 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Provide needed information 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 7 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Chance to observe/learn by association 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Arrange administrative experience 0 i 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Advise on salary negotiations 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Provide feedback on my progress 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Arrange access to other administrators 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Role'modeling 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Support and psycho-Counseling

encouragement

:clew'

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0

01

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4Friendship 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 I 2 3 4Encourage risk ...eking 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 ' 0 1 2 3 4Enhance my self- confidence 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Help formulate career plan 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Act as sounding board 0 I 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4Facilitate move from classroom 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 41 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

/446.1 1a/h1 N NO1 ON plertibftnaIre.

E8

@63

V83

8E

aR

igin

ON

EZ

Igs

g3P

Qm

NN

A

14M

$

42R

R %

A $

4

ZA

RR

NA

I4

4.4Z

Z<

41-4

.4'.1

r--.4=

41-4

.444

r64z z

1-1<

4-i

...444

z z'-4

mI--

Rul N co

04

1--

00

M I M v,

v -

1--

00000

O1--

N1..--Coen

O'

IQ,000

CO

04m,00

1,..

m000,11,..

.11

000mul

-4

gi

000.10

8m^ SI

cv

o, 0 .1 ,

pr cv

g-

f=14

CIllesimcv

, , ,

m, art NI v-

.*

0 0 04 N

CO

0 .4 M ,v,

Si

N W ..7t W

0 q> es, r...

o q) , r-.

in m ,12 m

m r-. m0

.1 m cv r-.

,

f i

^ , p .4.

O,1 0 trt o

vIMAM

N4

gi

N ko NO

mko

.-- .1 c...1

,-I

0 0 0 v-.

q) ir) o m

zq

m r. m 04

r-4

5i M ki) kt)

a. .4 ifl N

1 r.-4 M M

I--

$;g: .71 a ,c)

m c) m 0

r-4

:".

glgi 'f) 4

ii

m ,c, ,-- Lrl

cp0000

n..

0 0 0 n...

.4r..

cv q) trl .4

M0 M q) "..1

Acv (7, co r-.

ga

:I&A

co

mmcvo

Ac4.41-..m

R'R

,csio

Ntiloo%

1114

Scrns No.) Opach

IF 8.46 7.% 7.62AF 7.26 6.46 5.00IM 7.62 6.78 4.90AM 7.72 6083 4.75

'T 1e 5 - Oreer thitarirg Rirtims Group Maxis

Protazt Task Sham Ina:, Cbar acpa- Salary nseftric Amass Ibtal Rat(

5.77 8.85 8.23 7.71 7.92 6.62 5.23 8.23 7.33 89.67 25.97 6.31 5.71 6.40 5.71 5.43 3.2) 5.97 5.71 69.13 73.71 6.62 6.72 7.07 6.48 5.38 3.40 5.8) 5.43 68.92 83.53 6.32 6.21 6.68 6.15 5.77 3.15 6.51. 5.96 69.58 6

9,V,-.

I 17 9.91 9.00 8.91 6.91 9.55 8.55 9.27 8.36 6.82 5.91 8.45 7.73 99.37 1

A F 6.67 5.31 5.78 4.23 6.09 5.89 6.76 5.71 3.91 2.33 5.47 4.64 62.67 12I M 8.13 6.54 5.61 4.33 6.79 6.41 6.96 6.93 6.29 4.07 6.76 5.74 74.52 4A M 6.30 5.26 5.09 3.62 5.94 5.38 5.89 5.53 4.63 2,60 5.02 4.57 59.80 13

EL.Pr.

1 F 7.16 5.75 5.84 3.51 5.92 6.45 6.92 6.35 5.04 1.8) 6.23 5.10 66.02 10A F 4.91 3.91 4.62 3.24 4.56 4.71 5.12 3.91 3.09 1.71 3.91 2.82 46.51 15I M 6.73 6.11 5.13 3.38 5.96 6.56 6.33 6.29 5.20 2.56 5.78 4.C4 64.87 11A M 4.46 3.71 3.37 2.07 3.73 127 3.73 3.2) 2.54 1.12 3.39 2.34 36.f2 16

Sec.Pr.

1I F 8.67 7.78 6.33 4.33 7.11 7.33 8.17 7.11 6.39 2.94 6.94 16.56 79.66 3A F 7.36 6.16 6.39 3.95 6.49 6.46 6.69 5.73 4.97 1.68 5.43 4.68 56.2) 9I M 7.77 6511 6.00 4.53 6.34 6.49 6.72 6.11 5.49 3.8) 6.42 5.72 72.44 5A M 6.73 5.27 4.64 2.85 4.61 5.67 5.58 5.12 4.88 3.21. 4.85 4.73 58.11 14

Total 7,06 6.02 5.34 3.83 6.03 6.01 6.45 5.87 5.00 2.84 5.74 5.03 65.22

25

Table 6 - Psych:Erdal ttritnring RrIcticn Group Mears

able 9,p- 0- nsel Marl RE* Grind. Plat Scurd Mare: lbtal RackP:rt

I F 8.15 9.54 8.62 9.15 9.85 10.00 8.(X) 9.92 4.46 77.69 2A F 6.63 8.00 6.31 6.6) 6.23 7.43 5.11 6.23 4.51 57.02 10I M 6.20 8.78 6.63 7.6R 7.42 8.02 5.23 6.78 4.06 61.06 7A M 6.42 8.85 6.74 7.53 6.62 7.62 5.33 6.87 5.(4 61.12 6

Asst.SuPt-

1

I F 9.S6 11.03 9.64 9.00 9.36 10.55 7.91 9.00 8.00 83.82 1A F 6.51 7.93 5.83 7.23 6.% 7.62 5.64 6.40 3.64 57.75 9I M 6.83 8.70 7.22 8.23 7.35 7.72 6.41 7.43 4.85 64.71 4

IA M 5.64 7.21 5.55 6.66 5.64 6.49 5.04 5.55 3.83 51.61 13

El.Pr.

I F 6.99 3.31 6.E6 7.71 6.39 7.61 5.51 6.25 4.53 59.32 8A F 4.79 6.09 4.82 6.12 4.88 5.68 3.35 5.00 2.7' 42.97 15i M 6.91 7.98 6.22 7.47 5.67 7.47 4.89 5.73 4.58 56.93 11.A M

1

, 3.20 5.44 4.37 4.93 4.56 4.49 3.51 4.10 2,56 37.16 16

Sec.Pr.

I F 7.£6 8.83 7.33 7.94 6.94 8.67 7.17 6.89 6.22 67.88 3A F 6.(E 7.62 6.57 6.E4 6.41 7.22 4.46 5.A 4.49 55.39 12I M 63) 7.96 6.85 7.77 7.09 7.36 6.(X) 6.45 5.38 61.16 5A M 5.27 6.39 5.88 6.30 5.21 5.91 5.21 5.35 4.88 50.47 14

Ibtal 6.18 7.89 6.36 7.17 6.44 7.24 5.31 6.23 4.38 57.23

26

El

E§

.Pi

El

.r4.

1:`gl

S96 8

7070

cc>SR

AFA

74S

II1-4

Cs4

a

re)4'

Ul

Dr-.

co0,

RP A

4 AI A

1101i[T

IN?$gZ

igEti

,!,qf?iI

if39

P.4.L

I1

Fl

A

able 8 - Mentorirg Rnctims Parked non Mast to lEast helpful

Ilaitcrirg FInctims

X Career Rai( Order Psychosocial

1 Stcpert and ercarsgoient 7.832 tare my self-omfiderre 7.243 Wiertithip 7.17

7.06 Spmsxthip(pranatW 4necoraarl)

6.45 Provide needed nada' 56 EircurEw risk tddrg 6.447 Canselirg 6.368 Pct as acarlirg basal 6.239 Pole modelirg 6.18

6.03 Set challagirg task 10=Ward

6.02 Bcodunativisibility6.01 Share "tricks of 12

the tzaddi5.87 ante to obeervenearn by 13

associatico5.74 Prwide feedmdc co my 14

Prcgress5.34 03Frhirg 15

16 }hip famulate career plat 5.315.03 Arrage access to 17

aininistratore5.00 &rage alninistrathe

emperiare19 Ricilitate woe from classrtcm 4.33

3.83 Protect is a)2.84 Advise m a:gay 21

riegatiaticre

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

28

TABLE 9 - Comparison of Pavan and Shapiro Studies

Pavan Study Shapiro Study

Incumbents Male

X (Rank)

Female

X (Rank)Total

Mean (Rank)

Male

Mean (Rank)

Female

Mean (Rank)

Support and encouragement 7.89 1 8.35 1 9.42 1 5,51 1 5.82 '

Enhance my self oonfidence 7.24 2 /.64 3 9.21 2 5.06 3 5.73 2

Friendship 7.17 3 7.73 2 8.34 4 --- -Sponsorship (Promote /recommend) 7.06 4 7.56 4 8.55 3 3.89 14 4.02 14

Provide needed informatica 6.45 5 6.77 6 8.03 6 4.38 7 4.69 9

Encourage risk taking 6.44 6 6.:: 5 7.78 10 4.22 10 5.05 6

Counseling 6.36 7 6.64 7 8.12 5 5.13 2 5.43 3

Act as sounding board 6.23 8 6.60 8.5 8.01 7 ---

Role modeling 6.18 9 6.56 10 8.0 8Sat challenging tasks/standards 6.03 10 6.43 12 7.85 9 5.04 4 5.40 4

Exposure/visibility 6.02 11 6.60 8.5 7.52 12 3.96 13 4.29 12

Share "Tricks of Trade" 6.01 12 6.42 13 7.64 11 4.34 8 4.81 8

Observe /learn by association 5.87 13 6.45 11 7.43 13 4.43 6 4.99 7

Provide feedback on progress 5.74 14 5.99 14 7.40 14 4.18 11 4.61 11

Coaching 5.34 15 5.41 18 7.17 b ---

Help furor:ate career plan 5.31 16 5.64 15 7.15 16 3.99 12 4.28 13

Arrange access to administrators 5.03 17 5.43 17 6.69 17 -Arrange administrative experience 5.00 18 5.58 16 6.22 18 4.24 9 4.62 10

Facilitate move from classroom 4.38 19 4.71 19 5.80 19 3.42 15 3.81 15

Protection 3.83 20 3.86 20 5.13 20 4.89 5 5.10 5

Advise on salary negotiations 2.84 21 3.48 21 3.47 21 3.35 16 3.54 16

Range of Means ... 0-12 Range of Means =04

Ranks = 1-21 Ranks .. 1-16

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

29